MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092190007 · doi:10.1139/f03-045

Density-dependent predation by brown bears (<i>Ursus arctos</i>) on sockeye salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus nerka</i>)

2003· article· en· W2092190007 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas P. Quinn, Scott M. Gende, Gregory T. Ruggerone, Donald E. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Environmental BiologyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOncorhynchusUrsusPredationSTREAMSFisheryBiologyGrizzly BearsPopulationPopulation densityAbundance (ecology)SalmonidaeFish <Actinopterygii>EcologySalmoDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) killed by brown bears (Ursus arctos) in 13 streams over more than a decade in southwestern Alaska was best explained by an asymptotic increase to about 3000 salmon killed per stream per year as salmon density increased to 10 000 fish·ha–1of stream. Divergence from this pattern at some streams probably reflected variation in the number of bears using the stream (which we did not determine) and variation in salmon biomass consumed per fish killed. Daily surveys at one creek over 11 years revealed about 100–130 salmon killed per day, ranging from a few to over 600. Higher proportions of the available salmon were killed early and late in the season, when densities were low. Thus the number of salmon killed within and among years increased with salmon abundance but at a declining rate, and the proportion killed generally decreased. Our previous work indicated that the average proportion of salmon killed among streams was controlled mostly by stream size, affecting the ability of bears to catch salmon. These findings are important for understanding the effects of bears on salmon population dynamics and their role in the transport of nutrients from salmon carcasses.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations109
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207